Peter King says Bills/Rams Super Bowl

[PatsFanNH]

11 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Odds are against it no matter how invincible they seem as a Super Bowl rematch happened only once in its 55 year history.  I won't dignify the NFC team who won both games by naming them.  I'd love a Bills vs. Packers Super Bowl.  Two small markets showcased in the stadium that represents everything wrong with the NFL.

Mahomes has only lost 2 times in the playoffs. Both times by Tom Brady.  Basically he been to 2SB and 1 AFCCG in 3 years as a starter. Claiming they will go back isn’t hard to predict especially after they improved their O line.

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

Mahomes has only lost 2 times in the playoffs. Both times by Tom Brady.  Basically he been to 2SB and 1 AFCCG in 3 years as a starter. Claiming they will go back isn’t hard to predict especially after they improved their O line.

The most logical pick is a rematch of last year's Super Bowl because both teams have maintained the majority of their roster.  The same went for a Chiefs/49ers rematch prediction last year at this time.  However, there are so many variables that can derail a team and injuries took out the 49ers last year.  Other variables this season could be strength of schedule that impacts playoff seeding, Covid, a team getting "hot" going into the playoffs, and maybe just the Bucs or Chiefs having one really bad game in the playoffs.  It's possible but unlikely both teams will be back.  

[RobbRiddick]

Don't know if this has already been posted, not read the whole thread, but the analysts on NFL.com have made their picks. Quite a few pick us to lose in the SB and 3 have us winning it

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/super-bowl-lvi-predictions-chiefs-vs-49ers-in-l-a

[Doc]

2 hours ago, The Dean said:

Actually, since the transition was to Steve Young, that was a positive move, IMO. At that stage Young was superior to Montana.

 

Yeah but Steve Young was largely unknown at the time and went 5-5 that (1991) season, splitting time with Steve Bono.  And the Cowboys made the playoffs whereas the 49'ers didn't.

[GunnerBill]

54 minutes ago, RobbRiddick said:

Don't know if this has already been posted, not read the whole thread, but the analysts on NFL.com have made their picks. Quite a few pick us to lose in the SB and 3 have us winning it

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/super-bowl-lvi-predictions-chiefs-vs-49ers-in-l-a

 

Cute that David Carr picks his lil bro every year.

[RobbRiddick]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Cute that David Carr picks his lil bro every year.

 

Yeah that made me laugh, though he didn't mention him in the write up. The scenarios where we lose the super bowl makes me feel sick at the idea of being 0-5 in the big game. I can still feel the pain of those losses

[Rico]

2 hours ago, The Dean said:

 

Actually, since the transition was to Steve Young, that was a positive move, IMO. At that stage Young was superior to Montana.

 

 

 

I just prefer they ignore the Bills, for the most part. I know most others don't agree.

Maybe in the regular season, but certainly not in the post-season. Joe was $, while Young had 1 good year. They should've kept Joe & let him retire as a 49er.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Rico

[HOUSE]

Peter King must have gone back to school, seems smarter this year

[The Dean]

42 minutes ago, Rico said:

Maybe in the regular season, but certainly not in the post-season. Joe was $, while Young had 1 good year. They should've kept Joe & let him retire as a 49er.

 

 

I must have  missed Joe's SB wins in KC. Let me go look...

[The Dean]

I'll help you out. KC, under Montana's leadership, was 2-2 in the playoffs,. ZERO SB appearances.

 

SF, under Steve Young those two years:  4-1 Two SB appearances and one SB Victory.   

 

So, what's all this about playoff performance AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR CAREERS?

 

If you add the year before, when Steve was starting, they were 6-2 in the playoffs with two SB appearances and one SB Win. That's a TERRIBLE playoff performance,. 

 

Edit: Corrected a bad stat

Edited September 6, 2021 by The Dean

[BADOLBILZ]

6 hours ago, Doc said:

Not a real stretch. The transition from Montana had begun for the 49ers, they split with the Redskins the season before, barely losing to them, and they were coming off of an 11-5 season and had all those extra picks, including trading one to get Charles Haley.

 

 

The 1991 Redskins had a point differential of +261.........the 1991 Cowboys were just +32 and had only the 17th ranked defense in the league.    The disparity was MASSIVE and it was still pre-widespread free agency where rookies weren't expected to be huge contributors.

 

Close games within the division were expected and seen as less of a barometer then than even today (and you might recall the eventual 7-9 Patriots had the 13-3 Bills on the ropes at home last season). 

 

The Niners were considered a co-favorite in 1992.........they had a relatively down year(10-6) in 1991 but were +154 and loaded with established talent and were so unconcerned with the Cowboys that they traded them said Charles Haley.

 

The Cowboys were seen as more in the mix with the Lions and Bears than the top of the NFC at that point.

 

It was a bold take by King and was featured on SI promo's for months before camp.......so preceding the Haley acquisition..........even if you are taking a very retrospective angle.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2021 by BADOLBILZ

[Rico]

48 minutes ago, The Dean said:

I'll help you out. KC, under Montana's leadership, was 2-2 in the playoffs,. ZERO SB appearances.

 

SF, under Steve Young those two years:  4-1 Two SB appearances and one SB Victory.   

 

So, what's all this about playoff performance AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR CAREERS?

 

If you add the year before, when Steve was starting, they were 6-2 in the playoffs with two SB appearances and one SB Win. That's a TERRIBLE playoff performance,. 

 

Edit: Corrected a bad stat

Young only took them to one SB, not 2, and I did give him credit for that 1 good year in 1994. The main story of that SB was he finally got the monkey off his back and got the job done. Outside of that year though, you would NOT want him to be your QB in a big game since (unlike Joe) he would never rise to the occasion ... well, he did beat the Packers that one game later on thanks to TO. A great regular season QB much like Marino , though at least he did get a ring. Joe would've also won with the 49ers in 1994 and then retired with 5 rings.

[The Dean]

1 minute ago, Rico said:

Young only took them to one SB, not 2, and I did give him credit for that 1 good year in 1994. The main story of that SB was he finally got the monkey off his back and got the job done. Outside of that year though, you would NOT want him to be your QB in a big game since (unlike Joe) he would never rise to the occasion ... well, he did beat the Packers that one game later on thanks to TO. A great regular season QB much like Marino , though at least he did get a ring. Joe would've also won with the 49ers in 1994 and then retired with 5 rings.

 

 

EVERY playoff game is a BIG game. 

 

And EVERY one of Joe's rings were in the PAST. He was mostly done by then. Young was in his prime.

[Doc]

29 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

The 1991 Redskins had a point differential of +261.........the 1991 Cowboys were just +32 and had only the 17th ranked defense in the league.    The disparity was MASSIVE and it was still pre-widespread free agency where rookies weren't expected to be huge contributors.

 

Close games within the division were expected and seen as less of a barometer then than even today (and you might recall the eventual 7-9 Patriots had the 13-3 Bills on the ropes at home last season). 

 

The Niners were considered a co-favorite in 1992.........they had a relatively down year(10-6) in 1991 but were +154 and loaded with established talent and were so unconcerned with the Cowboys that they traded them said Charles Haley.

 

The Cowboys were seen as more in the mix with the Lions and Bears than the top of the NFC at that point.

 

It was a bold take by King and was featured on SI promo's for months before camp.......so preceding the Haley acquisition..........even if you are taking a very retrospective angle.

 

True, divisional games tend to be close.  The point being the Cowboys showed they could at least split with the Redskins, and they had a slew of 1st and 2nd round picks developing, plus, again, adding Charles Haley to beef-up the defense (Haley was a problem for the 49'ers off-the-field so they had to move him and no one else was offering a 1st rounder).  The Redskins were also believed to have come out of nowhere and just as likely to retreat to nowhere, and that's exactly what happened.

 

The 49'ers weren't viewed that highly because, again, Steve Young didn't show what he would become that season, averaging about 228 YPG and relying on a strong rushing attack and defense.

 

The Lions and Bears were considered flukes and consequently fell off a cliff the following seasons.  I remember those teams well.

 

A bold take would have been predicting the Lions winning the SB.  The Cowboys OTOH were a team loaded with high round talent thanks to the Vikings trade.  The question wasn't whether they'd win a SB: it was whether they could manage to screw it up.